Talk:OneTaste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This group is superbly interesting. I was embarrassed that wikipedia didn't have a page when I first learned about. While the content present is clearly lacking in quality and substance, I hope that with the page now in existence others with more knowledge will expand it. --Elindstr (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the article does not demonstrate the notability of the group. They may be interesting, certainly there are thousands of interesting groups or companies or other organizations around, but they are not all notable enough for Wikipedia. If you can find some reliable, third-party soucres that can explain the importance of this group, (i.e. news media, magazine articles, etc.,) then that would help. However, I did a search for this group in both news, and news archives, and found nothing. This may indicate that they have not been written about extensively, and thus, it would be difficult to verify information using sources. Ariel♥Gold 07:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have cited two third party news stories on the group which I believe evidences notability. I'm troubled that there is not objective standard for judging notability. I didn't create this page to publicize myself and I have no investment in this group. I learned about the group, found it highly notable given the scarcity of a polyamorous groups in the US, and thought that wikipedia would be better served by containing information about it. If you still disagree, please give me some objective standard to meet. --Elindstr (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/24/DDG9FCSNDS1.DTL

My ability to find one magazine article and two newspaper articles suggests that your inability to find anything about them is disingenuous and, more troubling, that you are too speedily deleting pages which offer unique and important content. --Elindstr (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not deleting the article, I simply reviewed it upon creation. The article, as it was when I reviewed it, did not give any evidence of notability, and had no references. Wikipedia does indeed, have a clear notability guideline, and two sources is not always enough to verify notability: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Additionally, the group's website is not a reliable third-party source, so should only used as a reference once notability is established by secondary sources. Also, YouTube should not be linked, per the external links policy. I have no stake in this article, I merely judged it on its merits as I found it. That is what the {{hangon}} template is for, and an administrator will decide whether it meets notability. I would suggest in the future that prior to creating articles, proper sources be gathered and notability established before creating it to avoid a reviewer tagging it for deletion. I'm sorry if you feel that the tag was done without merit, but at the time it was created, the article did not demonstrate anything notable that would justify the entry, and it still does not explain why it is notable. Ariel♥Gold 08:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the "external links policy, I believe that the link to YouTube, which features a documentary video by the group's founder is, in this case, an informative device which doesn't fall into the prohibited categories of the policy. "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page."--Elindstr (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Two changes. vagina -> clitoris; the SF weekly article appeared to bear this out, and as a pedant I'd strive for correctness - they're different things, right? Or "genitals" would work by being more general. Similarly, I believe we should try to distinguish between "neotantra" and "tantra". I'm not attached to the name though; perhaps "modern tantra" is less pejorative. OTOH tantra is supposedly a primarily Western label, not 100% bourn out my the source religion, so perhaps one should accept that it's simply been redefined. I find it difficult to object to "tantric sex", but I guess this is really something wider, which takes inspiration from tantra. Sourcejedi (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (I've no idea how Wikipedia is supposed to be used. I'm unlikely to see replies unless you email me, which I've enabled in my preferences.)